WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP
JOINT WASTE CORE STRATEGY
MATTERS AND ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
PROCEDURAL AND CONFORMITY MATTERS
Key Issue:
Whether the Core Strategy has been prepared in accordance with the relevant legal requirements
- Has the Core Strategy been prepared in accordance with the local development schemes of the Partnership authorities?
- Has the Partnership had regard to:
national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
the need for development plan documents (taken as a whole) to include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change;
the RSS for the region;
the RSS for any adjoining region;
the community strategies of the Partnership authorities;
any other local development documents that have been adopted by the Partnership authorities;
the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals;
the strategy prepared for the region under Section 7 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998[1];
any local transport plan, the policies of which affect any part of the Partnership area;
any other policies prepared under Section 108(1) and (2)[2] of the Transport Act 2000 which affect any part of the Partnership area;
the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents;
the long-term need to maintain appropriate distances between establishments[3] and residential areas, buildings and areas of public use, major transport routes as far as possible, recreational areas and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest;
the need, in the case of existing establishments, for additional technical measures in accordance with Article 5 of the Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances so as not to increase the risks to people; and
the national waste strategy?
- Have the Partnership authorities adopted statements of community involvement and, if so, does the Core Strategy comply with those statements?
- Has the Partnership carried out an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals and prepared a report of the findings of the appraisal?
- Is the Core Strategy in general conformity with the RSS?
- In so far as the Core Strategy contains policies that are intended to supersede other policies, is that fact stated in the Core Strategy and are the superseded policies identified?
- In respect of such of the “specific consultation bodies”[4] as the Partnership considered may have had an interest in the subject matter of the proposed Core Strategy, did the Partnership notify those bodies of the subject of the Core Strategy that it proposed to prepare; also invite representations about what the Core Strategy ought to contain?
- In respect of such of the “general consultation bodies”[5] as the Partnership considered appropriate, did the Partnership notify those bodies of the subject of the Core Strategy that it proposed to prepare and invite representations about what the Core Strategy ought to contain?
- Did the Partnership consider whether it was appropriate to invite representations from persons who were resident or carrying on business in the Partnership area? If so, did the Partnership make arrangements for the purposes of inviting representations from such persons of those descriptions as they thought appropriate?
- Has the Partnership taken into account the representations made in response to the invitations referred to in the three preceding questions?
- Prior to preparing and submitting the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State, did the Partnership consult each of the “specific consultation bodies” (to the extent that the Partnership thought that the proposed subject matter of the Core Strategy affected the body)?
- Prior to submitting the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State, did the Partnership:
make a copy of the proposed submission document and a statement of the representations procedure available for inspection during normal office hours at its principal offices and at such other places within the area that it considered appropriate; and, on the same day, did it request the opinion in writing of the RPB as to general conformity of the Core Strategy with the RSS?
publish on its website the proposed submission document; a statement of the representations procedure; and a statement of the fact that the proposed submission document was available for inspection and the places and times at which it could be inspected;
send to the specific consultation bodies who were invited to make representations a copy of the proposed submission document and a statement of the representations procedure;
send to the general consultation bodies who were invited to make representations a statement of the representations procedure and a statement of the fact that the proposed submission document was available for inspection and of the places and times at which it could be inspected; and
give by local advertisement notice which set out a statement of the representations procedure and a statement of the fact that the proposed submission document was available for inspection and of the places and times at which it could be inspected?
- Has the Partnership sent to the Secretary of State in paper form and, if practicable, electronically (in addition to the Core Strategy), the following “Core Strategy documents”:
the sustainability appraisal report for the Core Strategy;
a submission proposals map (if the adoption of the Core Strategy would result in changes to the adopted proposals map);
the statements of community involvement (if adopted);
a statement setting out which of the specific and general consultation bodies were invited to make representations; how those bodies and persons were invited to make representations; a summary of the main issues raised by the representations; and how representations have been taken into account;
a statement setting out the number of “duly made”[6] representations (or that no representations were made); and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations;
copies of the “duly made” representations; and
such supporting documents as it considers relevant to the preparation of the Core Strategy?
- Has an Appropriate Assessment been undertaken under the Habitats Directive (and sent to the Secretary of State)? If not, has a scoping exercise shown that there is no need for such an assessment?
- In respect of the documents sent to the Secretary of State, has the Partnership:
made available a copy of the Core Strategy and the Core Strategy documents during normal office hours at the places at which the proposed submission document was made available;
published on its website the Core Strategy and the Core Strategy documents; the Core Strategy matters; and a statement of the fact that the Core Strategy and the Core Strategy documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected;
sent to the specific consultation bodies who were invited to make representations a copy of the Core Strategy and relevant Core Strategy documents; and a statement of the fact that a copy of the Core Strategy and the Core Strategy documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected;
sent to the general consultation bodies who were invited to make representations notification that copies of the Core Strategy documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected;
given notice by local advertisement of the title of the Core Strategy; the subject matter of, and the area covered by, the Core Strategy; and the fact that a copy of the Core Strategy and the Core Strategy documents are available for inspection and of the places and times at which they can be inspected; and
given notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State that it has been so submitted?
- Where any person requested the opportunity to appear before the Inspector, did the Partnership (at least 6 weeks before the opening of the independent examination):
publish on its website the time and place at which the examination is to be held together with the name of the appointed Inspector;
notify any person who made “duly made” representations of those matters (unless they withdrew their representation); and
given notice by local advertisement of those matters?
Parties who may wish to contribute:
West of England Partnership
GOSW
MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
Key Issue:
Whether the Core Strategy is justified, effective and consistent with national policy
1.To what extent is it intended to adhere to the provisions of the former draft Regional Spatial Strategy?
2.What changes to the Core Strategy are suggested as a result of the demise of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy?
3.Will the content of the Plan enable the Core Strategy to look forward for a period of at least 10 years from the date of adoption? (PPS 10, Para 16)
4.How is it envisaged that necessary changes to the Proposals Maps of the Partnership authorities will be brought about?
5.In Paragraph 1.1.2, and regarding the scope of the DPD, would it be better to say “The Joint Waste Core Strategy applies to all waste, with the exception of most radioactive waste the policy for which is dealt with at a national level”; similarly in Paragraph 2.2.1?
6.Under the heading of municipal waste, and in the table under Paragraph 2.2.1, there is reference to a contract to supply municipal waste treatment capacity. Has any related provision yet been made? If so, how much, where and of what type? What provision is still to be made?
7.The same table, in regard to waste water treatment, refers to a commissioned Infrastructure Study (see also Para 6.11.1). Are the results available? What provision is needed? What are the policy implications?
8.In Para 5.3.1, would it be useful to refer to the Companion Guide to PPS 10?
9.How useful are Tables 5.2 and 5.3 on renewable heat and electricity targets? Are they the subject of monitoring provisions?
Parties who may wish to contribute:
West of England PartnershipGOSW
KEY ISSUES, CHALLENGES, VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
Key Issue:
Whether the Vision and Strategic Objectives are sufficiently focussed, spatial and locally distinctive; also whether they address adequately matters of self-sufficiency and timely provision
1.At the end of Para 3.2.2, should there be recognition that additional landfill / landraising capacity will also be needed?
2.In reducing the impact of climate change, is sustainable design a relevant factor (Para 3.3.1)?
3.Should the Core Strategy recognise that the relocation of existing waste facilities could be more environmentally harmful than expansion or redevelopment? [Gazelle Properties Ltd]
4.In what ways will communities be able to take responsibility for the waste produced (Para 4.1.1)?
5.Should the Vision be amended to make it locally distinctive (PPS 12, Para 2.1)?
6.Is it intended that the sub-region should be self-sufficient and that waste facilities should be provided with capacity equal to the amount of waste generated and requiring management within the area? If so, should this be reflected in the Vision? [Natural England]
7.The Vision indicates that the West of England will be resource efficient by 2026. With timely provision, won’t the Partnership wish to secure on-going provision such that improvements in resource efficiency can be achieved over the Plan period and demonstrated at key dates?
8.Is the promotion of public awareness a valid strategic objective in a spatial plan?
9.Is there a strong enough commitment to infrastructure delivery (Strategic Objectives, fourth bullet)? [Strategic Land Partnerships]
10.Strategic Objectives, 5th bullet: Are there other ways of contributing to the reduction of climate change and adapting to its impacts (as in Para 3.3.1)? Would it be better to omit the examples given and stick to the key objective?
11.Strategic Objectives, final bullet point: For the avoidance of doubt, would it be better to refer to locating waste development in accordance with land use priorities?
12.In the Strategic Objectives, should there be reference to reducing waste miles and using more sustainable modes for transporting waste? [Highways Agency; Strategic Land Partnerships]
Parties who may wish to contribute:
West of England PartnershipGOSW
Gazelle Properties LtdNatural England
Strategic Land PartnershipsHighways Agency
FUTURE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
Key Issue:
Whether there is clarity over the amount and type of waste management facilities that are likely to be required and the timing of their provision; also adequacy of coverage within the Core Strategy and justification through a robust and credible evidence base
1.Is there adequate coverage of “what”, “where” and “when”? [GOSW]
2.Is there clarity over the basis of the needs assessment? [Gazelle Properties Ltd]
3.For all waste streams, what are the baseline figures (preferable for 2010) for current arisings?
4.Does more accurate baseline data need to be established for commercial and industrial (C&I) waste? [Natural England]
5.For municipal solid waste (MSW), how much is currently composted and how much is recycled?
6.For commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, how much is currently recycled?
7.For key future dates (say 2015, 2020 and 2025), what are the target percentages for the amount of MSW and C&I that will be recycled and recovered. For the recycled component of MSW, what percentage should be composted? Similarly, what percentage of construction and demolition (C&D) waste should be used productively? What is the basis of the targets and the justification for choosing them?
8.For all waste streams, what rates of growth have been selected and used? What is the justification for choosing those particular growth rates?
9.What are the latest capacity calculations (recycling, composting, treatment and incineration)? In respect of existing capacity, are there any “lifespan” issues?
10.What is the assumed recycling capacity at Waste Transfer Stations and how robust is that assumption (further evidence needed)? Have appropriate assumptions been made? [Environment Agency]
11.What inert and non-inert landfill capacity is available within the sub-region? How is that capacity being reduced year by year?
12.On the basis of the above figures, is there a current shortfall (quantify) in facilities for the management of all waste streams? What facilities would be needed to plug the current capacity gap?
13.If the current and on-going capacity gap were met at key dates, what would be the position in 2015, 2020 and 2025 given the assumed arising growth rates and recycling and recovery targets?
14.In place of Table 5.1, would it be sensible to show in tabular form the indicative scale and number of facilities required, at 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025, for (1) recycling MSW and C&I waste; (2) composting MSW; (3) recovery of MSW; (4) infilling of non-inert (MSW and C&I) waste; (5) recycling of C&D waste; and (6) landfilling of inert (C&D) waste?
15.What changes to the Core Strategy would be necessary to summarise the above information?
16.What is the source of the figures in Table 6.1? Is the indicated capacity distribution reflected in the spatial provisions of the Plan?
17.Should Table 6.1 be removed from the Core Strategy? [Gazelle Properties Ltd]
18.In the Core Strategy, should there be some explicit consideration of the present and future need for facilities that will secure the productive use of C&D waste (as well as its disposal to landfill)? (Para 6.4.4)
19.What is the source of the figures in Table 6.2? How do the figures compare with those shown in the Capacity Needs Study at Table 2.3?
20.Should there be express recognition that the sites included in Policy 5 represent the minimum necessary level of provision – that the capacity requirement is a minimum, not a ceiling? [Gazelle Properties Ltd; Viridor Waste Management Ltd]
Parties who may wish to contribute:
West of England PartnershipGOSW
Gazelle Properties LtdNatural England
Environment AgencyViridor Waste Management Ltd
WASTE PREVENTION
Key Issue:
Whether the provisions in respect of waste prevention, including the use of Waste Audits, are clear, focussed and spatial; also whether they would help in the achievement of the Strategic Objectives in a direct and effective way
1.Do Paras 1, 2 and 3 of Policy 1 cover matters that are inappropriate in a spatial plan?
2.To what extent should the matters set out in the final sentence of Para 6.2.4 be explicitly referred to in Policy 1?
3.Should Waste Audits be required to demonstrate that the proposals put forward represent the most sustainable solution?
4.Should Waste Audits be required for developments smaller than 0.5 ha? [English Nature]
5.Should Policy 1, and a contributions policy, apply to all residential developments? [Persimmon Homes]
6.As a minimum, should there be a demonstration of satisfactory arrangements for the storage of waste for disposal and recycling in all new premises?
7.Policy 1 4b: In providing details of on-site recycling facilities, is this a requirement that relates to both the construction and operational stages?
8.Policy 1 4c: What about steps to reduce waste in the operation of the development eg water harvesting?
9.Policy 1 4e: Is “distance” the only relevant consideration?
10.Should Policy 1 require assessment of impact on the road network? [Highways Agency]
11.Policy 1 5: “Leading by example” – by whom?
Parties who may wish to contribute:
West of England PartnershipGOSW
English NaturePersimmon Homes
Highways Agency
DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF NEW FACILITIES
Key Issue:
Whether there is an appropriate spatial strategy which sets out clearly where future waste management facilities of all types are intended to be located
1.Is there adequate articulation of the approach to the spatial distribution of sites? [GOSW]
2.Should there be clarification on the capping of development when given areas reach their net capacity levels? [Avon Wildlife Trust]
3.Should there be a hierarchy of sites such that areas of greater biodiversity would be retained and protected? [Avon Wildlife Trust]
4.Does the Core Strategy need to make explicit the capacity of waste management facilities that will be required in each zone? [Natural England]